botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice

573. It is accepted that the Seiner Map shows hatching covering the island, a fact noted by the
1985 Joint Survey Team who appended a black and white enlargement of this section of the
Seiner map to their report11. Namibia and Mr. Rushworth contend that the red hatching
extends to the Chobe River as well as along its northern bank (and presumably to the centre of
the river as well as western bank of the Zambezi); this is highly questionable, even after
examination of the Extract at Figure 10 at page 122 in the Namibian Memorial, and is
certainly not visible on the original map. The key to the map gives no guidance to the use of
hatching as a boundary symbol.
[11 The Joint Team somewhat misleadingly stated that "This map showed the boundary to be the channel to the
south of Sedudu/Kasikili Island." Botswana Memorial, Annex 40, p.386.]
574. In any event to be in accordance with the 1890 Agreement the hatching should only
extend to the centre of the Chobe; it is quite impossible, given the scale, to read such
information into the colouring on the map.12
[12 Further the map depicts along the northern edge of the Chobe and on the south bank at Serondela and
Masokatan's Winterdorf lemon areas on the map interspersed with white patches; the key explains that these are
beds, pools, and depressions which after the rainy season quickly dry out in a short time after flooding (nach den
Regenzeit rasch aus trocknende Betten, Pfennen, Mulden, nur kurze Zeit uberschwemmte Flachen). Whilst the
Extract shows the red hatching covering these areas such hatching is not apparent on the original.]
575. Seiner was not a German official, nor was his map's publication authorised by the
German authorities. Seiner did not visit the Chobe area of the Eastern Caprivi and therefore
used Bradshaw and other maps, as he acknowledges by the inscription 'Bradshaw 80.,
Hammar 84. Reid 99.' His depiction of Kasikili/Sedudu Island follows closely Bradshaw's
configuration, retaining the pecked line along both banks of the northern channel to indicate
that they remained unsurveyed.
576. That Seiner appreciated that the boundary along the Chobe was required to follow the
thalweg or 'the Stromstrich line' is apparent from his own writings13.
[13 Writing in 1908, the year before the map was published, he stated that the boundary along the Chobe River
followed 'the deepest channel'. and used the technical term 'the stromstrich line' to explain its location. For the
definition of 'the stromstrich line' and Seiner's application of it in relation to the Chobe, see Chapter 6, paragraph
342, of this Counter-Memorial and Annex 4.]
577. In sum, it would be wholly unjustified to treat the colouring on the Seiner map as any
sort of official indication of the whereabouts of the boundary between South West Africa and
Bechuanaland Protectorate.
578. The comment that the Seiner map was "in general use for four decades, without
remonstrance from British or Bechuanaland authorities" (Namibian Memorial, para.294), and
that "from 1914 to 1929 the British authorities administered the Caprivi Strip as the delegate
of South Africa and as such during that time used Seiner's map" (Namibian Memorial,
para.303) is unsupported by the facts. It cannot seriously be suggested that the British
authorities were required by international law to object to every map, including unofficial
maps, published which misrepresented the boundary, particularly when, as shown above, the
map did not indicate any boundary which reflected the provisions of the Anglo-German
Agreement.